Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 99

src: www.returnofkings.com

Video Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 99

Infoiarm and agile management

• Agile Risk Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Agile Financial Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Infoiarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Two articles created by User:Infoiarm reference books by Alan Moran, who has a company called "Institute for Agile Risk Management (IARM)" . User denies a conflict of interest here User_talk:LaMona#10:21:34.2C_21_March_2016_review_of_submission_by_Infoiarm, (notified on their talk page on March 20) but does not explain the username. The articles are relatively NPOV, although both make mention of Alan Moran (and no other individual) in the opening text. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Infoiarm claims no COI as the articles do not refer to IARM or promote Moran (though authorship is cited). On point of fact other persons are also mentioned and cited in the articles and effort has been taken to create balanced and neutral content in spite of IARM own involvement in these fields. Some additional edits have been applied in light of recent discussions and a review of the articles to help improve them (e.g., recommend other changes or measures) would be very much appreciated.

Infoiarm (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Infoiarm you are new to Wikipedia and are not in a position to make judgements about whether you have a COI here in Wikipedia. Please tell us, do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? This is important - please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To explain a bit further (much more is on my talk page), IARM is a one-person "institute" founded by Alan Moran that publishes only the works of Alan Moran, and his is the only name that appears anywhere on its pages. So it isn't possible to refer to IARM in a way that is not a reference to Moran. It so happens that the two articles that have been created are also the exact names of one of those books by Moran. These terms are possibly wp:NEOLOGISMS and it isn't clear if they mean anything different from the many "Agile" methods that exist in business literature. LaMona (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yes I am new to Wikipedia and in the interest of avoiding any sense of COI (or even commenting further on it if this is not desired) I will voluntarily remove both articles now. Please be advised that there is and has been no attempt to skew/bias content - I feel the material is in itself balanced, neutral and appropriate though I also respect the feedback and issues raised that any association or appearance thereof may imply. Thank you again for your feedback and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Infoiarm you did not answer the question I asked. Do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? What is your relationship to IARM? If you want to continue as a Wikipedian you must answer. If you want to resign and walk away, that is of course an option. Not disclosing and staying, is not an option. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at their website, it seems to me that Agile Risk Management is pretty similar to Agile Business Intelligence (hard to tell without seeing the article) and Agile Financial Management is probably related to that as well. As suh, I don't believe either would ever warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, first off my apologies for overlooking your question that you posed earlier in the thread. infoiarm is associated with IARM as was mentioned in another talk i.e., this was no attempt to hide this fact or mislead in any manner as evidenced by the user ID. It was mentioned somewhere else too that I felt there was no COI because it was not the intent to promote IARM (which was never cited in either article) or Moran (though authorship is cited and the person is named alongside others). I added that I would respect the opinion of reviewers if they felt there might be any issue at all. In light of some comments I updated the one of the articles as I felt this feedback led to improvements but if the prevailing view is still that of concern then I would rather not antagonise or add to these concerns (hence by withdrawal). BTW, I took a look at the Agile Business Intelligence but think the topics differ i.e., there is clear water between the risk and financial materials and this article (sorry, perhaps I removed the articles too quickly?). I did wonder if a separate article was appropriate (or perhaps a subsection in an exiting article) but was unsure how to judge this. To conclude, This was a genuine attempt to air an interesting idea in NPOV but my desire to avoid COI or its appearance takes precedence so I will refrain from writing about it or related topics on Wikipedia. Infoiarm (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Another long string of words and no answer. "infoiarm is associated with IARM" is non-informative nonsense. "infoiarm" is an account on Wikipedia. By policy there needs to be one single human being operating that account. I am asking a question about the relationship in the real world between that individual human being and IARM, which is a legal entity in Switzerland, so that we can determine what conflicts of interest are at play here. Please answer the question about the relationships, and do not write about anything else. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 99

Technics Publications

• OnceAlpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Machine learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (reverted by: Qwertyus [1], next attempt reverted by me HelpUsStopSpam [2], then again by Chire [3], and then yet again Roxy_the_dog [4].
• Logical data model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Conceptual schema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Exploratory data analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Supervised learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unsupervised learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Feature engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• many more pages, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/technicspub.com

The user is clearly affiliated with the publisher, and systematically drops book references into articles. The attempt to discuss this in WikiProject Spam was removed [5] instead of discussing with the commit message

"This addition is not spam. We are adding important knowledge to this page from some of our technical titles. If you feel the content is irrelevant, that is a different story. But it is not spam just because books from the same publisher are being quoted." [6]

This is nonsense: the additions contain no "important knowledge" but even are copied from the book (Edit by OnceAlpha: [7], book matches via Google and thus could violate the copyright). By any means, they also just reiterate what the article already says (and thus do not improve the article), but with a reference to a new book by this publisher (and thus are spam). We have at least 4 editors considering these additions to be worth reverting...

Given above commit message ("from some of our technical titles") this user and company appears to violate the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and, of course, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The user continues to ignore the warnings and pointers, and instead continues with copying excerpts from their books into Wikipedia (which likely constitutes a copyright violation): [8]. The uploaded image [File:MahalFaciltationFramework.png] is also straight from the book "Facilitator's and Trainer's Toolkit", Page 23. on Google Books, the text from pages 22 and 23. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep I agree that this is spam. I'm going to give them a final warning and block them if it carries on. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Central Area

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Art379m

src: coldfusioncommunity.net

Richard R. Fisher

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Brian L. Jones

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Symposim on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design

src: i2.wp.com

Rory Ridley-Duff

src: upload.wikimedia.org

David Jolly

Michael Messenger and Victoria Nixon

• Paulwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• VictoriaNixon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Messengero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• OCtom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Michael Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Victoria Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. Paulwest (talk · contribs) own userpage on Wikipedia states: "Hi I'm Paul West. I'm a marketing man and sometime website developer. Some of the sites I've built include www.michaelmessenger.com".
2. Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Michael Messenger, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger.
3. Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Victoria Nixon, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon.
4. Other listed users, above, are all Single Purpose Accounts on same articles.

Thank you for looking into this matter,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Victoria Nixon = married to Michael Messenger, per this post to my user talk page: "I also would like to comment that my husband Michael Messenger has tried to help in resolving these problems for Wikipedia, but he is not fluent either, and now also is on the 'Deletion' list!". -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Henry I. Miller

• Henry I. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Henryimillermd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The subject of the article is an MD, so the username Henryimillermd clearly seems to be the subject. The named account is a WP:SPA who has been active on this article since July 2014. No response to attempts to contact him on his talk page or to postings on the article's talk page. Continues to make contentious edits to the article, claiming in edit summaries that material is "inaccurate, defamatory and libelous". Note that in this edit summary [10] the user states "I made the statement" when referring to a quote made by Miller. Meters (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is more a BLP than COI issue since the subject has been removing poorly-sourced content which is accusatory - an activist site such as this one is not a suitable source for BLPs. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

SmartSE I suggest that you take another look at this. I cannot agree that this is mostly a BLP issue. There are issues with a few of the sources that were used, but the user also removed material that was sourced to Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and directly to articles that Miller wrote himself. He appears to have a clear COI, he has a long history of editing this article without responding to attempts to discuss his edits, and his recent implied legal threats while removing material (and while doing so again without responding to the talk page thread)) justify this COIN thread. One of the purposes of this board is to determine "whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Any BLP issues with the material removed are already being dealt with (for example, the material you pointed to was not restored with the latest round of edits). Determining if there is a COI violation by the user is contingent on first deciding if he has a COI. Meters (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the section on "Controversial positions" is WP:SYNTH, using Miller's own writings rather than third-party sources. If these statements were sourced to proper third-party sources - and then removed by Miller - COI could be blamed. As it is, I myself would be tempted to remove these as not meeting wp:rs. I also think that much of the article is wp:CHERRYpicked by the editors. I'm not defending the Miller's views, but the article's problems do not stem entirely from his intervention. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Having looked at the various sections in detail I see there is a definite bias against Miller in the coverage. It is being discussed on the talk page, and will be addressed (some already has been). I think the controversial positions section is worth keeping. It needs to have balanced, non-synthesized coverage so that readers can see why Miller takes these seemingly controversial positions. But, as I said, at this point I am simply looking for consensus that we are dealing with a COI editor. Note that the editor has now made his first talk page response [11], albeit with more implied legal threats, and he clearly claims to be Henry Miller. Meters (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a policy BLP takes precedence over COI and in a case such as this where an article subject has raised questions about content we should examine our sourcing very closely. As LaMona has pointed out, much of it is WP:SYNTH - citing articles written about him as evidence that his views are 'controversial' when there are no sources stating that's the case. It's completely understandable why Miller was driven to edit the article himself. Obviously, we would prefer him not to edit the article and I hope he will refrain from doing so in the future, but that's secondary to the BLP issues that need to be addressed. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been some work done on the page and it is getting closer to NPOV. I would advise more discussion on the talk page, and then this one might be resolved. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Einstein field equation

• Einstein field equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relativity priority dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Newton-Cartan theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Einstein-Cartan theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gravitational wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ????????? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User ????????? promotes her book on these articles and others. Since she is an expert on these subjects, her contribution can be extremely valuable, but without referencing her own research. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that user has already removed the COI discussion notice from their talk page. That's a bit of a F-U. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Claiming to be a known expert does not allow you to refspam your publications across Wikipedia. Also, no evidence has been given that you actually are a "known expert in history of Einstein's special and general relativity", and the claims on sexism in Wikipedia sources is completely barbaric.

I think the user should have a final warning for spamming on Wikipedia, and if they continue, then they should be blocked, and there publications blacklisted if possible. (Is it possible to blacklist names of books, or can you only blacklist URLs?) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were not reverted because of sexism, they were reverted because of apparent self-promotion and conflict of interests. I tried to make that clear twice on your talk page, and other editors have tried to make that clear when they undid your edits. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor was adding a book written by herself, published by Cambridge Scholars Press, to articles like this. A search of the interwebs leads to some interesting discussions on whether this is a vanity press. - Brianhe (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The two books by "Weinstein, Galina" are held in ~50 and <10 libraries, respectively. This tells me that these are not major books in the field, so adding them to WP pages may not be warranted. They also do not appear on G-Scholar as cited books, and of the articles by this author, the most cited one has been cited 4 times. All of this speaks to "known expert" and unfortunately the results are not positive. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The above comments ("barbaric", "blacklist", "vanity press" etc) are an insult to scholarship and to a scholar and scholar's books and papers. Please avoid insulting scholars and their papers and books. In light of the above comments I no longer wish to be an editor on Wikipedia.-- Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.55 (talk o contribs)

Youth Time redux

Machine Zone

NS1 (company)

KORE Wireless

• KORE Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Trident13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• CO10 715 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• KORE Marketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see COIN archive). More cu is probably needed. The sourcing to trade magazines is especially qestionable, in some cases verbatim or very lightly edited corp press releases. In at least one case I removed stuff that was credited to publisher Wireless Daily News but linked to corp press room. The article still has very promo "awards" and "services" sections. - Brianhe (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

CAcert.org

NetApp

Starfire glass

Tang Huawei

What Every Science Student Should Know

Luly Yang

• Draft:Luly Yang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luly Yang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I requested for the information on the user's talk page. Let's see if the user responds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to update, user sent article AGAIN for review; Lemongirl942 has reminded them on their talk page that they haven't responded regarding COI. They've now been contacted about COI 5 times; no response. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the user is deliberately not responding or cannot understand the instructions. Regardless, I don't think the article is suitable for moving to the mainspace any time soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Tabish q

Tabish q (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on Afshar experiment to include a source that (COINcidentally) was written by Tabish Qureshi. I had earlier removed this source as unreliable as it was published by predatory publisher SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently -- it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. --David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I tried. We'll see how that goes. I appreciate your desire to retain Tabish! Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ssa1990

• Psychology of Women Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ssa1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Proximo9737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.

Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The use of the term "find us" as you noticed here and the linking to PWQ and nothing else strongly suggests a COI I believe. Perhaps reverting all of the user's additions as promotional spam would be appropriate? They only appear to be tangentially related at best. Elaenia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a longterm interest in this article (I added another account to this report which was previously blocked). I noticed that these two edits [17] and [18] use very similar language. Both of them seem to be a toned-down version of a "Call for Papers". Ssa1990 could well be a reincarnation of Proximo9737 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the article's content was cut/paste copyvio of Sage's journal description. Tagged accordingly, pending review. Brianhe (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently there's enough going on that I could have posted this almost anywhere and it would have been appropriate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?

This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a good question but the efficacy is debated. Do a web search for "Wikipedia off-page SEO" for some of the answers. It's my sense that reputation management is more important these days; see my essay for details and feel free to follow up on the essay talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:HEC SUPPORTER

Charles Saatchi

Hi - I posted a while back on the talk page of Charles Saatchi with an edit request (see here) and linked through to my sandbox (here) where I've marked up a version with some additions (including some more sources where those are lacking) as well as a couple of things I'm proposing to remove. I've summarised and explained those changes here on the sandbox talk page. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look that'd be very much appreciated. My COI is that I work at Bell Pottinger and Charles Saatchi is my client - see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Biofuel Research Journal

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)

Danielle Sheypuk

Rory O'Keeffe

Talk:ethereum

Ramy El-Batrawi

J. Ralph

• J. Ralph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eldorado74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Last month I attempted mediation on this article where the editor has insisted on reverting it to a version he has deemed acceptable. Previous version were removed for copyright infringement. From a struck-out edit on 16 December 2010 by a possible sock User:Eldoradoclinton the content was referred to as 'this is the approved bio from j. Ralph'. Since then the editor has engaged in WP:OWN behaviour, as exemplified by this edit. Karst (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm unable to comment on the COI aspect at the moment, but there does seem to be a lot of puffery in the article. I have opened a new section on the talk page for resolving the dispute. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your input. Parts of the previous content is included on the official J. Ralph biography page here - pointing to a possible WP:COI. Karst (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wormyseas1

• Amila Kankanamge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - cleaned, speedy nom
• Onnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - being cleaned by others

• Wormyseas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - active July - December 2014 (edits checked); seemed to transition to another account here
• Shylypizie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - active Dec 2014 - Jan 2015 - not sure if they started a new account from there...

Just putting this here so we have a record. Pretty obvious socking and paid editing - all stale now with the exception of one editor I am not going to list at this time. Neither listed editor shows up in a search at SPI Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Loubna Berrada

• Loubna Berrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Loubna berrada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits [23] and [24]. Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this is a BLP issue. I didn't find any biographical information about her in the sources listed, and even checked the wayback machine for the staff page of the organization, but she's not there. I don't think she should be editing this page in the way that she has done, but I must say that the article does sound inflammatory. There's now a delete request on it, and I think that may be the best route. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that some of the original information was not cited, but I am certainly not comfortable with her changing the article to a version she thinks is appropriate. I am listing some of the sources I found

• These are some (possibly) reliable sources about her [25], [26] (web archive copy of Elsevier (magazine)) which show that she was involved with the VVD as well as a founding member of the committee of ex-muslims. [27] quotes her as a cofounder as well.
• She also removed the information that she was a candidate of Libertas Netherlands in 2009 (see List of Libertas list candidates at the 2009 European Parliament elections) although her name was in the candidate list (see the Dutch Electoral Council website [28]) and there was a biography of her on Eline van den Broke's website (see [29]).
• Article at NRC Handelsblad where it says [30], [31] she left the ex-muslim council.
• Opinion piece which (possibly) says she is an ex-Muslim [32].
• Not sure if opinion or news article, but implies that she left the council after some disagreements [33]
• An opinion piece about her [34] which should be read with care as it seems to be written by someone who has a beef with her (POV).
• Unable to understand the translation here [35]. Would be glad if someone could help.

I'll try to ask her to reply here so that we can look at what she is trying to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP issue as well, I am not reverting her edits until this is clarified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the coi tag on this because there was no problematic content. I've also sent it to AFD per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE since the subject is barely notable and they are obviously (and understandably) not happy with our portrayal of her. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mboland.phideltatheta adding unsourced promotional edits for Phi Delta Theta

• Numerous articles
• Mboland.phideltatheta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Mboland.phideltatheta is an SPA that has been inserting unsourced edits in numerous biographical articles, all promoting Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Mboland.phideltatheta has been warned both about adding unsourced promotional material and about conflicts of interest, to no avail. 32.218.34.78 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Major League Fishing

• Major League Fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aly.a.akers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user who created this article stated that he works for them, how can this be handled? Laber?^T 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This was a single-purpose account that only appeared to edit for a few days then disappeared about a month ago. They have been advised of our COI guideline. If they return maybe further action will be reconsidered but it looks like there's nothing more to do for now. - Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

myfundnow.com

• Melodyafsana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.

They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I should also draw attention to this edit posted back on March 28 which affords some insight into the COI issues here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This account is still being used to add material along the same lines: here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is time to indefinitely ban this user; they are here solely to promote myfundnow.com Please see their contribs and their lack of responsiveness at their talk page. The person uses this username on external websites in relation to this site. See:
  • here where they ask for advice about technical details in running the site
  • here promoting it Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've blocked them from editing. It'd take an awful lot for them to get unblocked, given their edit history. Tokyogirl79 (?????) 06:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Trans Studio Bandung

• Trans Studio Bandung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bcbulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Storkabner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Albert Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Here we have a bevy of SPA's devoted to adding and reverting long long long lists of commercial tenants, replete with a spam-farm of inline links, to this possible notable, possible not notable shopping mall/tourist area. Maybe Socks? Not sure.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Economist article

• Bernardo Florencio Javalquinto-Lagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need help from the community in deciding whether to list the SPA author of this article. The article itself had many indicators of promotionalism (see this revision before I started cleanup), including a 2014 fake award from the so-called WorldRenownedExperts.com organization, which now has a dead website. Brianhe (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor has stated that this was an "academic task". AGF I will presume this was some kind of course assignment and have reported to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents/Archive 5#Bernardo Florencio Javalquinto-Lagos so they can be provided appropriate guidance. - Brianhe (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Winterschild11

• Winterschild11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Mackenroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor says here that he is placing content on behalf of a celebrity. He never responded to Joseph2302's January 2016 COI warning here. - Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: I took a look at the article... it's a masterpiece of nauseating obfuscation. It's like a pyramid built from a billion trivial ocurrences. I did manage to slice 10 or 20% off of the pyramid though. Not sure if that helps on the COI front, but it might rustle the bushes.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, and here is your answer on Winterschild and Jack Mackenroth... they met on Twitter.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia